On February 9, 2026, on-chain data monitoring tools showed that the BlackRock-related spot ETF address transferred a large amount of crypto assets to Coinbase Prime, including 2,268 BTC and 45,324 ETH. Based on the market price at that time, the former was valued at approximately $155.9 million, and the latter at about $91.78 million, totaling around $247-248 million. This range was derived from cross-verification by multiple data sources such as Lookonchain and Onchain Lens, and was cited by several Chinese media outlets. There was a clear division in the market regarding this transfer: one side viewed it as a potential selling pressure signal, while the other interpreted it as part of the normal custody and liquidity management of the ETF. The core question this article focuses on is what this $248 million transfer actually signifies within the framework of spot ETF operational logic and on-chain evidence.
2,268 BTC and 4….
● Value Breakdown: According to on-chain tracking by Lookonchain and Onchain Lens, the BlackRock-related ETF address transferred a total of 2,268 BTC to Coinbase Prime, estimated at about $155.9 million based on the day's price range; simultaneously, 45,324 ETH were transferred out, equivalent to approximately $91.78 million. The combined value of these two asset parts is approximately $247-248 million, with differences in valuation primarily reflecting the timing of price sampling, but the overall range is highly overlapping.
● On-chain Path: On-chain records show that this batch of BTC and ETH was first sent from a wallet long marked by the industry as the BlackRock spot ETF-related address, and then entered an account labeled as the Coinbase Prime custody address. The transfer process is clearly visible: assets flowed unidirectionally from the ETF address, merging multiple transactions before concentrating into Coinbase's institutional service integrated wallet. The path is highly consistent across the two major analytical tools, representing a standard link of “ETF → institutional custody platform.”
● Data Credibility: Several Chinese media outlets, including Golden Finance and Planet Daily, cited the monitoring results from Lookonchain and Onchain Lens in their reports. Both tools consistently identified the quantities of BTC and ETH, with price conversion differences controlled within 0.01%. After cross-verifying information across multiple platforms and languages, the market has largely reached a consensus: the scale of this transfer is approximately $247-248 million, which is highly reliable on-chain public information.
ETF Fund Scheduling: Prelude to Selling or Account Migration
● Logic of Subscription and Liquidity Management: Spot ETFs require continuous scheduling around subscriptions, redemptions, and secondary market liquidity in their daily operations. Whether for physical purchases of new shares or asset delivery during redemptions, funds and market-making institutions typically complete large transfers through top-tier custody and execution platforms. Periodically or temporarily transferring assets from the ETF's main wallet to professional custody accounts is a common practice in the global ETF industry and does not necessarily correspond to a singular meaning of “selling.”
● Multiple Uses for Transfers to Coinbase Prime: As an institutional service platform, Coinbase Prime simultaneously undertakes custody, clearing, and execution functions. Transferring BTC and ETH to this platform may indicate that the assets are preparing to enter more refined multi-signature custody, collateralization, over-the-counter settlement, or market-making configurations, or it could be reserving ammunition for future liquidity needs. The on-chain record only shows “transferred to Prime,” but it cannot be directly mapped to “immediate selling on the public order book,” as there is a significant distinction in timing and business implications between the two.
● Boundaries of Information Transparency: As of now, there has been no clear official statement from BlackRock regarding this on-chain operation, whether it pertains to custody restructuring, market-making preparations, or potential trading plans, all remain at the level of external speculation. Based on currently verifiable data, it can only be confirmed that assets flowed from the ETF address into the Coinbase Prime custody system, and no concrete inferences can be made about whether, when, or how much will be sold afterward, avoiding the interpretation of on-chain signs as established trading facts.
Social Media Amplification: Selling Pressure Panic vs. “Routine Procedure” Debate
● “Imminent Selling” Narrative: On social media, some viewpoints equate this $247-248 million transfer with “BlackRock preparing for a large-scale sell-off.” Their logic is often based on past experiences of “large transfers to trading platform addresses → amplifying selling pressure expectations,” rather than official signals or operational explanations. This camp typically cites screenshots and single data sources, emphasizing the trading convenience of funds entering trading platforms, thus deriving an emotional judgment of “selling precursor.”
● “Standard Custody Process” Perspective: Another voice views this action as a routine step in the standardized custody and settlement process of spot ETFs, arguing that in the context of traditional asset management, large asset migrations between custody institutions are very common and should not automatically correspond to panic selling. Analysts holding this view often combine the operational needs of ETFs, emphasizing Coinbase Prime's role in compliant custody and clearing infrastructure, advocating that the market should reduce the over-amplification of a single on-chain transfer.
● Emotion-Driven Price Noise: Historical experience shows that once visualized large on-chain transfer records appear, regardless of their actual business purpose, social media often amplifies emotions in a short time, shaping a “bearish” or “bullish” public opinion atmosphere. In a highly liquidity-sensitive environment, such emotions can trigger short-term price fluctuations or even “self-fulfilling” cascades, but this does not imply a stable, reusable causal relationship between emotional deductions and on-chain behavior.
Traditional Asset Management Presence Amplified: Coinbase Prime as a Bridge
● Infrastructure Role of Coinbase Prime: Coinbase Prime is positioned as an integrated platform for custody, clearing, and execution aimed at institutions, providing compliance frameworks, audit support, and multi-asset custody capabilities for large asset managers, corporations, and family offices. For traditional asset management giants like BlackRock, choosing such top-tier platforms as infrastructure helps balance risk control, compliance reporting, and operational efficiency, while also reducing the cost and complexity of building a complete crypto asset custody system.
● Visible Traditional Financial Connections on-chain: The behavior of the BlackRock-related ETF address transferring $248 million worth of assets to Coinbase Prime presents a direct, publicly verifiable link between traditional finance and the crypto market on-chain. Such large transfers with clear on-chain paths are becoming a “window” to observe how traditional institutions participate in crypto asset allocation, indicating that the pace of transition from exploratory layouts to normalized asset management is accelerating.
● “Institutional Presence” and Demonstration Effect: When leading asset management institutions leave clear asset migration tracks on-chain, it is not just a single event for the market, but it also reinforces the overall perception of “institutional presence.” For other traditional institutions still assessing crypto exposure, such cases have a certain demonstration effect regarding custody models, platform selection, and operational compliance, which may promote more traditional funds entering the crypto market through similar paths in the medium to long term.
Data Perspective on Large Transfers and Price Linkage
● Short-term Impact on Order Book Expectations: From historical experience, when the market observes large assets flowing into trading platform-related addresses, it often leads to a redefinition of price ranges at the expectation level. Market-making and high-frequency strategies may adjust order depths and spreads based on “potential selling pressure,” and short-term funds may amplify defensive operations, leading to a thinner order book that is more easily impacted, even if actual selling behavior has not yet occurred or is limited in scale.
● Time Lag Between Asset Movement and Actual Transactions: It is essential to distinguish that there is usually a misalignment in time and motivation between “on-chain recorded asset movement” and “actual transactions in the secondary market.” Assets can first be concentrated in a custody or execution account and then sold in batches, hedged, or used for other financial operations based on liquidity needs. External observers who directly use price fluctuations to infer on-chain transfer intentions may easily fall into the causal inversion analytical trap.
● Boundaries of Explanation for Medium to Long-term Trends: In terms of scale, this transfer of approximately $247-248 million is sufficient to impact short-term sentiment and narratives, but when placed within the context of the total market capitalization of Bitcoin and Ethereum and the overall ETF fund size, it remains a considerable yet limited operation. Based solely on this event, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive explanation for medium to long-term price trends, market structure changes, or macro fund flows, nor can it be viewed as key evidence confirming any particular trend.
Understanding the Boundaries and Methods of On-chain Whale Movements
● Key Information Review: Based on currently available public data, the core elements of this event can be clearly defined: timing occurred on February 9, 2026; participants were the BlackRock-related spot ETF address and the Coinbase Prime custody platform; scale involved 2,268 BTC and 45,324 ETH, totaling approximately $247-248 million; data sources come from cross-verification by Lookonchain and Onchain Lens, and are highly consistent with reports from multiple Chinese media, possessing high credibility.
● Re-emphasizing the Analytical Bottom Line: When interpreting any behavior of large transfers into trading or custody platform addresses, equating it simply to “immediate dumping” is an oversimplification. On-chain data only tells us “where assets moved from and to,” but cannot directly reveal “why they came, and what will happen next.” In the absence of official intent disclosure, maintaining this analytical bottom line is key to avoiding emotion-driven and over-interpretation.
● Future-Oriented Observation Framework: For similar events, a more robust approach is to establish a multi-dimensional observation framework: continuously track subsequent on-chain movements, monitor whether further asset migrations occur between the BlackRock-related ETF address and Coinbase Prime; combine publicly disclosed ETF position changes and scale adjustments to assess the overall direction of fund inflows and outflows; and remain alert to potential official statements or regulatory document updates. Until these three types of information gradually converge, maintaining a cautious and restrained interpretation of a single on-chain action may be the best way to understand “whale movements” at this stage.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
